Scientific Progress, Understanding, and Knowledge: Reply to Park

Finnur Dellsén*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Dellsén (2016) has recently argued for an understanding-based account of scientific progress, the noetic account, according to which science (or a particular scientific discipline) makes cognitive progress precisely when it increases our understanding of some aspect of the world. I contrast this account with Bird’s (2007, 2015); epistemic account, according to which such progress is made precisely when our knowledge of the world is increased or accumulated. In a recent paper, Park (2017) criticizes various aspects of my account and his arguments in favor of the noetic account as against Bird’s epistemic account. This paper responds to Park’s objections. An important upshot of the paper is that we should distinguish between episodes that constitute and promote scientific progress, and evaluate account of scientific progress in terms of how they classify different episodes with respect to these categories.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)451-459
Number of pages9
JournalJournal for General Philosophy of Science
Volume49
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sept 2018

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature.

Other keywords

  • Knowledge
  • Scientific progress
  • The noetic account
  • Understanding

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Scientific Progress, Understanding, and Knowledge: Reply to Park'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this